News:

"Magic is what makes fantasy fantastic," someone says, "you can't apply rules to them or else it loses wonder!" I respond, "Sure, but if you want to write them you will certainly want to know how they work." Writing is all about execution, and I find applying some basic laws of physics to magic systems make them more understandable and realistic. Here, I'm going to outline my basic method for developing a magic system.Column by Chaos2651Discuss it in our forums.

Author
Topic: TOO MUCH NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! (Read 3911 times)

Let's face it. There is WAAAAAAAY to much insulting other people on big sites like YouTube. Who wants to get called names by someone they've never even MET? I know I don't want to. If there's ONE person who likes that, then I'll eat my brother. No matter how good the thread or video is, someone will go out of their way to insult it (yeah, you, Peter Ahlstrom). I know I sound like a HUGE goody two-shoes, but if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all. It's true. So who's with me? Stand up against those jerks, or let ourselves be stomped all over?

I think it's like internet road rage, but if you think about it, I never seem to agree with the critics with the movies I like, and some movies that are making tons and tons of money, I hate, which just means it all boils down to taste sometimes. When we put things on youtube, we disable comments or make it so we have to approve all comments because sometimes we're just sharing things because we like to share things with our friends and we don't really care if people LIKE or DISLIKE what we made and we don't care to hear about it either. It's our 'happy place.' Just disable or approve all comments if you don't like them, I say

Logged

"You&#8217;ve got more issues than National Geographic!"

"You&#8217;re like a soggy brown banana, the only use for you now is to get cooked."

Tagg Veylan

I defuse the situation by killing them with kindness and logic. No matter how inane their comments are, I simply say that I understand their point of view and appreciate their comments, and then I apply logic to destroy the framework of their presuppositions from beneath them. If they continue, they simply show themselves to be illogical to all who see them and are simply another example of the uselessness of their kind.

fardawg has been banned for 7 days for posting the previous comment under an assumed name. (Both for the comment and for the violation of the one forum account policy.)

And I'm seriously considering making it permanent. How about I do that unless he apologizes for this comment to each and every member who posted in that Tolkien thread, who he has so callously insulted above? Comments from the involved parties?

Um, I was actually OK with the tone of conversation until I saw this thread. I mean, I don't think I would have argued much further; my real points weren't being addressed very well. But this just takes the cake.

Apology? I don't care one way or the other. I think what would really need to happen is a show of good faith. Proof that fardawg actually cares about something besides proving himself right, or has an interest in the subjects for their own sake. Not because I need to be proved right, but because I'd much rather have an honest debate.

I'd accept an apology if fardawg actually offers one. As for further action? I don't know. I'm willing to let this go and ignore his further posts. Now that he has that "My opinion is the only right opinion" mentality I don't want to dignify his comments with a response. That's why I stopped commenting on that thread.

If it's decided that a permanent ban is the correct course of action, that's fine by me, but I do worry that he'll log in on another account and start this crap all over again. Perhaps we just need to ignore the tantrum and hope that he'll get the hint.

He claims on Twitter that Tagg is his brother who just happened to register that day and posted that comment when fardawg was at work, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that. The above comment makes sense in the context of being a sock puppet. In any case he shows no inclination to apologize.

fardawg had a condescending know-it-all attitude throughout that thread but he was not openly insulting. The above comment is insulting in the context of that thread, and is very difficult to read any other way.

So I had long twitter chat with him. I think he now has better understanding of where things went wrong for him in the conversation. It was a rather long interaction and based off of his comments I think he got the point. "Fardawg101 CM @spencerpanger I have a problem in letting things go when there is a complete misunderstanding. That is why I started the thread." I would say to honestly give the guy another chance and see how it goes from there. I really think it was poorly handled by him in the beginning and just got escalated with lack of proper forum decorum used on his part. It does seem from the conversation that the secondary account really was his brother. But that's my opinion.

"Fardawg101 CM @spencerpanger I have a problem in letting things go when there is a complete misunderstanding. That is why I started the thread.

Often, in my younger days, I had a problem letting things go when I had decided THE WHOLE WORLD IS WRONG AND JASON IS RIGHT. I've grown up since then (I'd like to think), but back then I would conclude that

1. I couldn't possibly be wrong2. Since I couldn't possibly be wrong, anyone who disagreed with me must be wrong3. If they continued to be wrong after I explained why they were wrong, they must be "misunderstanding" me

Only a consistent effort to correct these "misunderstandings" would result in everyone agreeing with me and seeing the error of their ways.

Fardawg's Tolkien thread had all of these elements. He repeatedly refused olive branches of "we mostly agree, but we're using different terminology", or "in your context, you're right, but what we're saying isn't untrue", etc.

It just doesn't seem like he possesses the maturity and discipline to respectfully disagree with people in a forum like this. His comment to Peter ("How many bestsellers have YOU written?") among others was blatantly uncalled for. He even insulted Peter for pointing to elements of his text which indicated anger/passion and lack of calm. Fardawg seemed to believe that angry and insulting words would lose sting ("just joking") if you interspersed lots of smiley faces.

All that said, people can sometimes mature given the opportunity. I say give Fardawg the opportunity to treat this as a life lesson, that you can't walk all over people's opinions and insult their viewpoints -- particularly not a forum dedicated to a respectful exchange of ideas. An apology to all concerned is a great idea, not because I feel Fardawg did anything wrong to me, but because sincere contrition would be a necessary first step to have any meaningful interaction with this forum.

But no more missteps tolerated. (And if the stated penalty for sock-puppets is immediate permanent ban, I say make it so. I don't know whether the policy states levels of tolerance or not...I suspect from Peter's response it is moderator's option.)

I have a great deal of respect for Peter for even asking our opinions, and admitting his desire to banhammer while offering Fardawg an out through the voices of other forum-goers.

To be perfectly honest, I don't want Fardawg back...he did not seem to be positively contributing (the opposite), but I have faith in second chances. Or to be more accurate, I want to have faith in second chances.

I read through what fardawg said in his private messages to me (he sent me four which ticked me off, but it turns out three of them were the same due to a forum error, so it was really just two). And I read his Twitter conversation with mycoltbug. He did not admit any misunderstanding was on his side, and he does not think any of his behavior was jerkish or condescending. I could go through his posts sentence by sentence and explain things to him but I don't want to waste my time. Maybe if I'm bored someday I can have time for that. But I may let the ban expire on schedule if he realizes those two points (that some misunderstanding could have been on his side, and that even if he didn't mean to be a jerk or condescending it still came off that way and he should change how he acts at least for this forum).

I really like your post on the topic, Jason.

However, Tagg Veylan's philosophy above on how to treat people who disagree with him indicates a person I simply do not want on this forum.

I defuse the situation by killing them with kindness and logic. No matter how inane their comments are, I simply say that I understand their point of view and appreciate their comments, and then I apply logic to destroy the framework of their presuppositions from beneath them. If they continue, they simply show themselves to be illogical to all who see them and are simply another example of the uselessness of their kind.

Man, this comment is weird. He starts by talking about 'defusing the situation' and 'killing with kindness,' which I actually think are good ways to deal with a nasty argument. (Better, in fact, than my own sarcastic post above.) But then he starts in about how he destroys people with logic, and how people who disagree with him are useless. Yikes!

I apologize for coming off as a jerk in the Tolkien thread. It was not my intent but I clearly did. By trying to not look like one I just made it worse. I was afraid from the start that people would take me the wrong way so I overcompensated. It is much easier in real life to get across your attitude. I'm someone who likes people to understand every little point I make and I like discussions to be wrapped up in a little bow. I don't need everyone to agree with me. I'm not that kind of person. I just want people on both sides to understand where the other is coming from before it ends. I'm anal that way. That is why I sent Peter the PM. I felt his last post deserved a response and I wanted to clarify some things. It did tick me off when I saw he was posting about me on twitter. Once again, I am sorry.

PS. (sorry this is long) Tagg (yes, he is my brother. I left timewasters up when I left and it got him to finally sign up.) was talking about spammers, trolls, hatters, etc. He was not referring to anyone on this forum, esp. not Peter. He had no idea who Peter was and it is unfortunate that the OP referred to him. He hadn't even read the other thread because he doesn't like Tolkien except for the movies. It doesn't make sense when applied to the Tolkien post since no one was trolling or hating in it. Everyone was very civil and I still appreciate the conversation. Peter ended the topic so he doesn't fit as someone who would continue to spam. He was actually thinking about certain types of atheists and others who post comments on youtube with hateful attitudes who cuss in all caps. Instead of yelling back he (and I) just address whatever ridiculous accusation they make (ala "Xtians are f#$%%$#@ stupid and cause war teh should all die!!!!!) as if they have a point and then point out where they are wrong. If they continue to be hateful and cuss without discussing like a normal human being, they just continue to look bad. Most of the time they begin to act civil. I myself have had wonderful conversations where the person thanked me at the end. Tagg was going for a cold Sun Tzu feel which is why it came off like it did (he was role playing for the school of war track thingy). Looking like jerks apparently runs in the veins. That said, you don't have to bother unbanning him since he doesn't want to post again. I'll just delete his account if I can.

PPS. If I was back in college this would make for a great paper on miscommunication.